Chandrababu Naidu's Plea Against FIR & Remand : Andhra Pradesh High Court Reserves Verdict [Live Updates]

Court breaks for lunch. Hearing to continue after

Luthra: the decisions that I have taken are subject matter of the allegations. It's not like I and a private individual had an issue and I a public servant took decision. That was not the case here...

Luthra refers to a Karnataka HC judgement. Reiterates that 17A is a procedural MANDATE

Luthra: Atchannaidu is in my favour. It was held therein that 17A has burdened the authorities with certain obligations/ liabilities...Though procedural in nature...has ultimate effect on the prosecution

Luthra cites case of Kinjarapu Atchannaidu (2020). It involved a long period of alleged instances, either prior to PCA amendment or thereafter.

Luthra: It (17A) will apply to every FIR post amendment.

Luthra: FIR registered prior to 2018 amendment, would not be considered (for sanction). However, this FIR is not like that.

Luthra: My learned friends want to do away with Section 17A provision. It's a case of procedural law. And it is settled.

Sr Adv Siddharth Luthra now supplementing submissions for Naidu

Salve: What is the glaring need for custody? He was cooperative. There is no doubt.